Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
How odd to come from an administration that seems hellbent on spending its way out of a recession.
I think it’s a terrible idea to get complacent with our military’s capabilities.
Typical liberal knee-jerk reaction. Anything relating to the military is either bad or a joke and should be ridiculed. And they even have trouble spelling common words in their ludicrous surveys.
Grahhh! Libruls!
Defense spending has driven our economy since WWII. Does anyone think Congress is going to allow the Pentagon to shut these programs down? The military has warehouses full of weapons they didn’t want because the suppliers were in the districts of key Senators or Congressmen.
No, it isn’t a good idea to cut all the programs he is considering cutting. I said all, there are some that probably should be cut.
DDG-1000 would be first on my list to go. Keep the F22 and increase the carrier fleet to 12. Get new Air Force tankers. Increase the pay for the troops.
If we continue to cut the military eventually we will end up speaking Russian or more like Chinese.
There is some sense in what was cut but insanity too. We are quickly approaching time when even third world countries will have long range missiles if not more. Technology needed to produce them is old and resources needed small. Similarly small nuclear weapons are on the same track, for the same reasons. Yet, missile protection systems are to be cut… Someone is not thinking further than their nose.
On a side is the fact that increased military spending could have been extremely effective and quite cheap way of spending to get us out of the recession. For the simple reason that it typically includes whole chains of industries and cutting edge research that eventually leaches to consumer world and provides word-wide advantage in particular field… So, not only that it would provide economic activity needed but the basis for conquering world market after the recession.
Has there ever been a defense plan that doesn’t involve more spending?
Here’s 2 simple money saving ideas:
1. Stop sending $10 billion to Israel every year.
2. Stop sending $5 billion to Egypt every year.
Re: #4, Absolutely right. We are trapped by the Military Industrial Complex “One hand washes the other” arrangement. If the politician wants to be elected, he has to make sure the defense contractors are happy.
We spend 40% of what the world spends on defense. It sure didn’t make a difference when a bunch of loonies with box cutters blew up the World Trade Center. For those of us who enjoy firing weapons buy another box of ammo and plink away.
Seems reasonable to me. 187 F-22’s is plenty, and they’re keeping all the planned F-35 orders and the new tanker program.
How can we be safe in this world if we are only spending as much as the next 25 countries combined?
We need more weapons and more wars to keep the military in tip top shape in case the NRA mounts a civil insurrection.
I mean, why change anything when we are so demonstrably successful?
There is some sense in what was cut but insanity too. We are quickly approaching time when even third world countries will have long range missiles if not more. Technology needed to produce them is old and resources needed small. Similarly small nuclear weapons are on the same track, for the same reasons. Yet, missile protection systems are to be cut… Someone is not thinking further than their nose.
If a rogue nation obtains a nuke and is determined to use it against the U.S., they’re not going to try to create an expensive high technology infrastructure to build and launch missiles. They’re going to put the nuke on a ship and sail it into New York Harbor. Who needs missiles?
Someone’s not thinking past their nose, and it’s the companies that would make big bucks on a bogus “missile shield” that would never be used. Also, the people who can’t see past the old Cold War scenarios when all the nukes were on missiles.
I don’t see much sense in a poll like this… how are us civilians supposed to be able to make a judgment on such a complex issue? You might as well ask me if carbon-fiber or polymer stents are better for heart bypass surgery.
# 15 Phydeau said, “I don’t see much sense in a poll like this… how are us civilians supposed to be able to make a judgment on such a complex issue? ”
Yep. I can only comment that we spend too much relative to GDP.
Interesting snippet from the Bloomberg article:
The F-22 jets are the most expensive fighter aircraft in U.S. history, at $354 million each in inflation-adjusted dollars amortizing 20 years of research and development.
Conceived in the early 1980s as a radar-evading, advanced dogfighter to take on the Soviet Air Force, the F-22 was recast in the early 1990s to engage ground targets as well.
So basically, this hugely expensive airplane was designed for a mission that no longer exists, and its mission has been changed. Hopefully it can do its new mission, even though it wasn’t designed for it. For this, we’re paying one hundred forty million dollars per airplane???? (I’m being charitable and not using the $354M per airplane in the above quote.
Why don’t we just build a whole lot more A-10 Warthogs? They’re relatively cheap, and perfect for engaging ground targets — they did a great job in Iraq.
But as others have said, the big military contracters have big political power, and we’ll get these airplanes, whether we need them or not. 🙁
Can we really afford business as usual in Washington any more?
For once we agree Paddy-O — we spend too much on the military. I don’t want the U.S. to be the world policeman any more, it costs too much money.
#14–Phydeau==You speak with military insight and perspicacity. Of course, the real threat in the coming years will be ICBM’s. You can tell the opionion of someone steeped in military history–always fighting the last war(s).
No, the THREAT we face is dirty bombs in the back of a truck or in the hold of a cargo ship. ABM Shields don’t protect against that.
But yes whatever the next threat turns out to be, USA will be wrapped up in its porkulous fraudulent programs as usual and be looking in the wrong direction, then we will overreact.
I haven’t seen the figures. OBL’s attack on 9-11 probably had a direct economic impact of a billion or so but our out of proportion response has cost us in the trillions.
Its “thinking” like this that will be our downfall.
The current Def secretary is in the best position to determine if and what programs get funded.
It is certainly NOT the morons on Dvorak who belong to the party that lost and will not be in power till at least 2030.
If we continue to cut the military eventually we will end up speaking Russian or more like Chinese.
Now see, this is the old Cold War mentality that keeps us spending billions of dollars on useless Cold War armaments like aircraft carriers. Does anyone really think that the Russians or Chinese would try to invade the U.S.? Come on, get real.
Furthermore, China already has us by the short hairs. They ship us cheap stuff and lend us money. They could put a serious hurt on us just by refusing to buy any more T-Bills, or unloading their Dollars on the market. And the ironic thing is, we did it to ourselves.
What a stupid poll.
How about one that says “No: Save Jobs?” Gee only a hint of bias not including that one. Why don’t you just come out of the closet and admit your favorite hobby is setting kittens on fire.
“Why don’t we just build a whole lot more A-10 Warthogs.”
From what I read, the Army isn’t allowed to build new A-10’s because they’re fixed wing aircraft. That’s why they have the Apache program even though the A-10 performs the mission better. It’s kind of dumb.
Geez stopher, you mean the army can’t build fixed wing aircraft because that’s the air force’s domain? That is dumb… 🙁
#24 And the Air Force can’t build capital ships…
The Army & Air Force were split in ’47 I think. BTW- The Apache & A-10 have some overlap but the Apache has capabilities that the Army utilizes that the A-10 can never fill.
Military is not being cut. They are moving resources around to where they are needed. If you don’t like it and think that we need things liket the F-22 and 10k+ icbm’s then go back in time and stop the Iraq war.
Oh great, spend more money on Iraq and Afghanistan while cutting the budget on air superiority? Ugh.
Spend more money on fighter jets and mini nukes, less on illegal pointless wars.
#17 “So basically, this hugely expensive airplane was designed for a mission that no longer exists, and its mission has been changed. Hopefully it can do its new mission, even though it wasn’t designed for it. For this, we’re paying one hundred forty million dollars per airplane????”
Kind of. It was designed mainly as an interceptor, but like the F-15 it was also designed to be configured as a fighter-bomber. Besides interception the F-22 will fill the role of the old F-117 stealth fighter, fast long range stealth strikes. In a first day of war scenario F-22’s and B-2’s fly in deep and take out radar and major defenses and the less-survivable strike fighters and bombers come in after them. There were only 64 F-117’s, so even if they “only” build 187 F-22’s its still a pretty significant upgrade.
In regards to the A-10 discussion, the A-10 will be in service until the late 2020’s and the new F-35 multirole fighter crosses into its mission.
Like I said before, I think the plan sounds good and I’m glad they’re not cutting back the F-35’s. Its a cheaper stealth strike fighter for each branch of the military that generally replaces/expands on the abilities of the F-16, F-18, and Harrier.
I’d rather not fight wars in the first place, but at least the F-35 was designed for the sort of wars we might expect to be involved in over the next 20-40 years.
Why isn’t the military being cut? What happened to the “peace dividend”? In the Cold War, we had to be prepared to fight a massive war on the ground, in the air, and on the sea with another superpower. So we needed lots of tanks, ships, planes, etc., etc. Now we’re fighting scruffy terrorists with plastic explosives hiding in caves. Why do we still need such a HUGE military? There are no more superpowers to fight!
And yes, you can say, what if Russia and China start ramping up their war machines. But as mentioned before, China has already conquered us economically, and Russia is in just as bad shape as we are. So I hardly find that plausible.
However, the big military contractors will surely flog that scenario to death.
# 29 Phydeau said, “Why isn’t the military being cut? What happened to the “peace dividend”? ”
When the military made their list of cuts it immediately became a game of NIMBY for members of congress whose districts would lose $ & jobs because of the plan(s)…
Yes, I saw a cartoon that expressed that… Two guys are looking at plans, one says to the other, “This airplane will be invulnerable… it has parts built in every Congressional district in the country!”
What a shame. 🙁
#15, Pattyo Furniture
You might as well ask me if carbon-fiber or polymer stents are better for heart bypass surgery.
Try the porcelain ones. More pretty colors.